link to article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&ncid=1276&e=5&u=/afp/20040916/wl_afp/iraq_un_us_annan

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/th/afp_lo_1.gifAustralian PM says UN is "paralysed", rejects Annan claim Iraq war illegal

SYDNEY (AFP) - Australian Prime Minister John Howard slammed the United Nations as a "paralysed" body as he rejected claims by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that last year's Iraq war was "illegal".

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040916/capt.sge.jyt49.160904092227.photo00.default-384x248.jpg
Australian Prime Minister John Howard (pictured) slammed the United Nations as a "paralysed" body as he rejected claims by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that last year's Iraq war was "illegal".(AFP/File/William West)

Howard was one of US President George W. Bush's strongest supporters over the invasion. He is struggling for a fourth term and his political survival in an October 9 general election in which Iraq is a key issue.

The invasion, which the United Nations refused to endorse, was "entirely valid" legally, Howard said. Instead, he turned the tables on the United Nations, saying it was structurally incapable of acting on major crises, citing the current one in Sudan's Darfur region.

Howard said more people were dying in Sudan now than in Iraq, hinting at a parallel between the United Nations' position now and that before last year's invasion, which he maintained was legal.

"The legal advice we had -- and I tabled it at the time -- was that the action was entirely valid in international law terms," Howard said.

"That was a legal opinion we obtained from the relevant people in Australia. There had been a series of security council resolutions."

In a BBC radio interview, Annan said the invasion did not conform with the United Nations charter "and from the charter point of view it was illegal".

Asked if he meant that the decision to invade was illegal, the secretary general replied: "Yes, if you wish."

Australia still has several hundred military personnel in Iraq, and their presence has become a very sensitive issue for Howard after last week's bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta. Howard has been accused of misleading the public over the reasons for going to war and on other issues.

Analysts have suggested Canberra's role in Iraq may have made Australia a greater target for Islamist extremists, drawing a parallel with the March election in Spain, won by the anti-war Socialists after a series of blasts on trains in Madrid killed nearly 200 people.

Opposition leader Mark Latham has pledged to take Australian troops out of Iraq if he is elected, saying Australia should be focusing its resources instead on defence in its own part of the world.

But Howard said the United Nations' decision making procedures were too slow.

"The problem with the United Nations - it is a wonderful body in many respects and it does great humanitarian work - is that it can only proceed at the pace of the collective willingness of the permanent members," Howard said.

"You are seeing it now, tragically in Sudan. The body is paralysed. It is not doing much and the reason is you can't get agreement among the major powers. And people are dying, thousands of people are dying every month in Sudan."

Howard said that far more people were dying in Sudan than in Iraq "and the United Nations sadly has been unable to do anything".

Doesn't the UN work on nations advocating things, such as intervention in Sudan? If far more people are dying in Sudan than were dying in Iraq, howcome George Bush and John Howard aren't pushing the issue as nearly as had as they did Iraq? You'd think they didn't give a shit.

KILL THIS CLONE
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v360/Singidunum/pm.jpg

Aside from the arguments about Iraq, I agree that the UN IS too slow to act/react on issues. Nonetheless, what other organisation is there that acts rapidly and responsibly in such crises?

In the case of Iraq, how many resolutions were there warning Iraq about non-compliance with UN demands, and the consequences of such non-compliance? I personally do not agree with the war in Iraq having taken place, as there were, and still are more important problems for the UN to deal with, but surely those warnings should have been enough or a justification?

Unfortunately the UN gets its agenda set too much by countries such as the US, instead of setting its own agenda

Doesn't the UN work on nations advocating things, such as intervention in Sudan? If far more people are dying in Sudan than were dying in Iraq, howcome George Bush and John Howard aren't pushing the issue as nearly as had as they did Iraq? You'd think they didn't give a shit.
Answer no OIL mate!

Isn't the UN really just a bunch of guys in suits,sitting around in a big building feeling like they are important,but with no real power.